UniGIO: Unified Generative Global In-situ Weather Modeling from Spatiotemporal Incomplete Observations
Authors: Songru Yang, Zili Liu, Tao Han, Ben Fei, Lei Bai, Chang Liu, Zhengxia Zou, Xiangyang Ji, Wanli Ouyang, Zhenwei Shi
Organizations: Department of Aerospace Intelligent Science and Technology, School of Astronautics, Beihang University, and with the Key Laboratory of Spacecraft Design Optimization and Dynamic Simulation Technologies, Ministry of Education, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China · Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Shanghai 200232, China · Department of Information Engineering, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong 999077, China · Department of Automation, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
Global In-situ Observation (GIO) provides fine-scale, direct records of the global weather system from sparse point stations, making it an indispensable source for capturing localized and transient dynamics beyond the reach of satellite gridded data, and playing a critical role in key fields such as numerical weather prediction, disaster prevention, and agriculture. However, GIO exhibits strong spatiotemporal incompleteness, severely impairing accurate and real-time in-situ weather modeling. Unlike existing methods waiting for completed AI-ready data with extra introduced errors, in this work, we explore UniGIO, a novel generative framework for directly modeling global in-situ weather dynamics from native incomplete GIO. By generating missing data from observed ones annotated by masks, it unifies the coexisting forecasting, imputation, and generation under arbitrary missing ratios. Between the missing and observed, UniGIO captures station and region level complementarity through the Observation Mixer and Event Aligner, which diffuse discrete observations into continuous spaces where weather processes naturally span multiple stations. We further establish temporal dependencies with pattern shifts using the Adaptive Temporal Mixer, and track extreme events in chaotic local weather systems through a Mixture-ofExperts structure. Steady and extreme events are adapted in decoder by a Local Refiner. Extensive experiments on the up-todate largest global station weather dataset Weather-5K validate its SOTA performance with 11%, 12%, and 5% advantages on accuracy, fidelity, and extreme event capture, delivering a novel holistic solution for weather modeling in GIO networks.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Spatiotemporal incompleteness in GIO makes it difficult to model local weather systems and detect extreme events at the finest scale. We analyzed the station density, annual missing rate, and the AI-ready rate to demonstrate its severity. AI-ready rate: The ratio of non-missing to all samples when station data is spliced in windows.
Fig. 2: (a) Mask-driven observation-to-missing generation, (b) UniGIO achieves leading performance while maintaining lightweight in data and model scale
Fig. 3: Overall pipeline of UniGIO. The framework is organized as a lightweight CVAE, where key designs for GIO complementation are marked in blue and key designs for extreme pattern capture are marked in green .
Fig. 4: Detailed designs in Observation Mixer: (a) Station-Centric Field Complement to diffuse discrete station level observations into continuous local space with field and memory tokens; (b) Event Aligner corrects inter-station temporal delays via frequency-correlation alignment.
Fig. 5: Details for extreme pattern capture, assessment, and generation. (a) Uncertainty Score and Pattern Decoupled MoE suppress missing-induced state noise and decouple global similarity from local heterogeneity. (b) Extreme event Assessment and Generation use CVAE variance and sampling-noise control to estimate and generate extremes.
Fig. 6: UniGIO achieves SOTA performance on accuracy, extreme event capture, and fidelity across all time windows.
Baselines
Temperature
Dewpoint
Wind Rate
Wind Direc.
Sea-Level Pressure
MAE ↓
MSE ↓
MAE ↓
MSE ↓
MAE ↓
MSE ↓
MAE ↓
MSE ↓ ( ×103 )
MAE ↓
MSE ↓
Deterministic
4.54 / 4.32
25.5 / 26.8
3.37 / 3.54
16.7 / 17.5
2.10 / 2.16
6.19 / 5.98
92.8 / 97.4
10.5 / 11.0
4.77 / 4.96
34.8 / 33.1
TimeGAN
5.51 / 10.3
37.8 / 76.5
3.91 / 6.98
22.4 / 41.5
2.51 / 4.33
8.31 / 14.7
103 / 147
12.5 / 17.9
5.77 / 8.69
49.8 / 78.5
TimeVAE
4.58 / 5.36
25.6 / 29.9
3.43 / 4.02
16.8 / 19.7
2.09 / 2.45
6.04 / 7.08
96.9 / 114
10.6 / 12.4
5.16 / 6.04
37.5 / 43.9
Diffwave
5.14 / 5.76
34.8 / 38.8
3.74 / 4.17
21.5 / 24.7
2.45 / 2.48
8.84 / 8.76
105 / 119
14.5 / 15.9
4.99 / 5.14
40.6 / 43.9
SSSD
4.98 / 5.39
33.1 / 37.9
3.88 / 4.25
23.9 / 27.0
2.37 / 2.69
8.65 / 9.52
107 / 111
15.4 / 16.1
5.00 / 5.78
41.6 / 48.1
TABLE I: Quantitative Accuracy Comparison on Curated / Native Masks (120h) † means re-implemented
Baselines
Temperature
Dewpoint
Wind Rate
Wind Direc.
Sea-Level Pressure
99.5th ↑
90.0th ↑
99.5th ↑
90.0th ↑
99.5th ↑
90.0th ↑
99.5th ↑
90.0th ↑
99.5th ↑
90.0th ↑
Deterministic
0.07 / 0.07
0.35 / 0.33
0.12 / 0.11
0.50 / 0.53
0.01 / 0.01
0.10 / 0.20
\
\
0.08 / 0.08
0.40 / 0.38
TimeGAN
0.10 / 0.19
0.46 / 0.48
0.21 / 0.28
0.58 / 0.60
0.03 / 0.06
0.19 / 0.26
\
\
0.19 / 0.19
0.50 / 0.51
TimeVAE
0.11 / 0.12
0.47 / 0.47
0.19 / 0.19
0.60 / 0.60
0.02 / 0.02
0.14 / 0.14
\
\
0.13 / 0.13
0.52 / 0.51
Diffwave
0.12 / 0.12
0.39 / 0.40
0.19 / 0.19
0.53 / 0.54
0.10 / 0.10
0.22 / 0.22
\
\
0.15 / 0.15
0.44 / 0.44
SSSD
0.12 / 0.13
0.40 / 0.42
0.20 / 0.21
0.53 / 0.55
0.12 / 0.12
0.25 / 0.26
\
\
0.15 / 0.16
0.44 / 0.46
TABLE II: Quantitative F1-SEDI Comparison on Curated / Native Masks (120h) † means re-implemented
Baselines
Temperature
Dewpoint
Wind Rate
Wind Direc.
Sea-Level Pressure
CroS ↓
FID ↓
STE ↓
FID ↓
STE ↓
FID ↓
STE ↓
FID ↓
STE ↓ ( ×103 )
FID ↓
STE ↓
Deterministic
4.76 / 4.95
6.21 / 6.42
4.73 / 4.50
2.16 / 2.05
4.54 / 4.31
1.66 / 1.74
3.88 / 4.08
3.98 / 4.18
5.40 / 5.13
1.58 / 1.66
3.20 / 3.36
TimeGAN
1.22 / 0.95
5.53 / 5.38
1.11 / 0.89
2.32 / 2.29
1.08 / 0.78
1.50 / 1.52
0.95 / 0.72
3.80 / 3.80
2.97 / 2.51
2.53 / 2.51
3.10 / 3.17
TimeVAE
1.28 / 1.20
6.57 / 6.22
1.88 / 1.78
2.42 / 2.31
1.64 / 1.56
1.80 / 1.71
1.38 / 1.31
4.18 / 3.94
3.37 / 3.20
1.67 / 1.59
4.45 / 4.33
Diffwave
0.92 / 0.87
6.01 / 5.69
0.53 / 0.50
3.04 / 2.89
0.46 / 0.44
1.81 / 1.72
0.67 / 0.75
4.24 / 4.03
2.21 / 2.11
3.02 / 2.87
3.13 / 3.14
SSSD
0.82 / 0.78
6.05 / 5.75
0.51 / 0.48
3.77 / 3.58
0.48 / 0.36
2.01 / 1.91
0.64 / 0.71
4.65 / 4.42
1.28 / 1.20
2.54 / 2.41
3.16 / 3.11
TABLE III: Quantitative Fidelity Comparison on Curated / Native Masks (120h) † means re-implemented
Baselines
Window
Temperature
Dewpoint
Wind Rate
Wind Direc.
Sea-Level Pressure
MAE ↓
MSE ↓
MAE ↓
MSE ↓
MAE ↓
MSE ↓
MAE ↓
MSE ↓ ( ×103 )
MAE ↓
MSE ↓
TimeGAN
72h
5.24 / 9.42
33.2 / 63.4
3.33 / 5.71
16.3 / 28.7
2.49 / 4.20
8.05 / 13.8
97.0 / 136
11.4 / 15.9
4.55 / 6.49
31.1 / 45.0
240h
5.88 / 11.2
43.5 / 88.8
4.51 / 8.18
28.9 / 54.4
2.82 / 5.16
10.4 / 19.8
111 / 165
13.9 / 20.8
6.66 / 10.2
63.9 / 101
TimeVAE
72h
4.41 / 3.36
23.2 / 17.7
3.00 / 2.28
12.9 / 9.87
2.03 / 1.54
5.52 / 4.20
93.0 / 70.9
10.1 / 7.66
4.24 / 3.23
25.8 / 19.6
240h
4.88 / 11.6
29.7 / 70.6
3.94 / 9.34
21.8 / 51.6
2.20 / 5.22
6.75 / 16.0
103 / 244
11.4 / 27.2
6.00 / 14.2
50.4 / 119
UniMTD †
72h
2.00 / 2.03
8.96 / 10.4
2.04 / 1.99
9.94 / 10.7
1.36 / 1.28
4.05 / 4.21
66.2 / 61.1
8.21 / 7.08
2.65 / 2.35
19.8 / 17.2
TABLE IV: Quantitative Accuracy Comparison on Curated / Native Masks (72h/240h) † means re-implemented
Baselines
Window
Temperature
Dewpoint
Wind Rate
Wind Direc.
Sea-Level Pressure
99.5th ↑
90.0th ↑
99.5th ↑
90.0th ↑
99.5th ↑
90.0th ↑
99.5th ↑
90.0th ↑
99.5th ↑
90.0th ↑
TimeGAN
72h
0.15 / 0.23
0.49 / 0.51
0.28 / 0.34
0.65 / 0.66
0.04 / 0.08
0.24 / 0.29
/
/
0.35 / 0.35
0.62 / 0.63
240h
0.04 / 0.06
0.39 / 0.40
0.10 / 0.14
0.48 / 0.50
0.02 / 0.05
0.15 / 0.20
/
/
0.03 / 0.04
0.36 / 0.36
TimeVAE
72h
0.15 / 0.16
0.50 / 0.51
0.27 / 0.26
0.66 / 0.66
0.03 / 0.02
0.19 / 0.19
/
/
0.33 / 0.33
0.63 / 0.63
240h
0.03 / 0.03
0.40 / 0.39
0.05 / 0.06
0.50 / 0.50
0.02 / 0.01
0.09 / 0.10
/
/
0.01 / 0.01
0.34 / 0.34
UniMTD †
72h
0.48 / 0.49
0.75 / 0.75
0.37 / 0.45
0.68 / 0.71
0.17 / 0.24
0.37 / 0.46
/
/
0.51 / 0.55
0.70 / 0.72
TABLE V: Quantitative F1-SEDI Comparison on Curated / Native Masks (72h/240h) † means re-implemented
Baselines
Window
Temperature
Dewpoint
Wind Rate
Wind Direc.
Sea-Level Pressure
CroS ↓
FID ↓
STE ↓
FID ↓
STE ↓
FID ↓
STE ↓
FID ↓
STE ↓ ( ×103 )
FID ↓
STE ↓
TimeGAN
72h
0.47 / 0.39
5.67 / 5.54
0.42 / 0.34
2.16 / 2.15
0.42 / 0.32
1.47 / 1.49
0.90 / 0.91
3.78 / 3.78
1.18 / 1.06
2.03 / 2.00
3.42 / 3.50
240h
3.24 / 2.61
5.76 / 5.65
3.01 / 2.38
2.57 / 2.51
3.01 / 2.28
1.53 / 1.54
3.42 / 2.57
3.91 / 3.89
5.65 / 4.77
3.26 / 3.23
2.74 / 2.82
TimeVAE
72h
0.28 / 0.26
5.34 / 5.11
0.75 / 0.67
2.52 / 2.27
0.39 / 0.37
1.24 / 1.19
0.89 / 0.86
3.06 / 3.11
1.56 / 1.69
1.31 / 1.44
4.53 / 4.77
240h
2.74 / 2.43
6.72 / 6.74
3.04 / 3.37
2.48 / 2.42
4.11 / 3.80
1.85 / 1.80
4.06 / 3.93
4.26 / 4.13
6.15 / 4.90
1.68 / 1.61
4.24 / 4.25
UniMTD †
72h
0.19 / 0.22
3.07 / 2.03
0.31 / 0.17
1.53 / 1.16
0.26 / 0.30
1.02 / 0.66
0.56 / 0.67
2.61 / 1.59
0.15 / 0.12
1.26 / 0.87
2.56 / 1.52
TABLE VI: Quantitative Fidelity Comparison on Curated / Native Masks (72h/240h) † means re-implemented
Method
TimeGAN
TimeVAE
Diffwave
SSSD
Diffusion-TS
UniMTD
SportsTraj
UniGIO-M
UniGIO
ESFM-S
Chronos2
WSSM
iTransformer
Corrformer
Params.
3.4M
2.3M
4.1M
4.3M
4.9M
10.1M
7.3M
0.9M
3.4M
115M
120M
1.8M
0.9M
55.6M
TABLE VII: Parameter Comparison of Unified and Task-specific GIO models.
Fig. 7: Due to space constraints, only wind rate and sea-level pressure are displayed for imputation and generation tasks
Fig. 8: UniGIO achieves SOTA performance on Forecasting, Imputation, and Generation tasks, even beating Foundation Models.
Baselines
Temperature
Dewpoint
Wind Rate
Wind Direc.
Sea-Level Pressure
MAE ↓ /99.5th ↑
MSE ↓ /90.0th ↑
MAE ↓ /99.5th ↑
MSE ↓ /90.0th ↑
MAE ↓ /99.5th ↑
MSE ↓ /90.0th ↑
MAE ↓ /99.5th ↑
MSE ↓ ( ×103 )/90.0th ↑
MAE ↓ /99.5th ↑
MSE ↓ /90.0th ↑
Variable-Length Forecasting
TimeGAN
7.40 / 0.11
53.7 / 0.46
5.15 / 0.19
30.7 / 0.59
3.23 / 0.02
10.8 / 0.18
130.6 /
16.00 /
7.45 / 0.17
65.8 / 0.50
TimeVAE
5.85 / 0.10
32.77 / 0.47
4.38 / 0.17
21.51 / 0.61
2.65 / 0.02
7.56 / 0.13
123.9 /
13.6 /
6.52 / 0.12
46.9 / 0.51
UniMTD †
2.35 / 0.40
11.3 / 0.70
2.27 / 0.35
11.7 / 0.65
1.59 / 0.22
5.29 / 0.35
76.3 /
10.7 /
2.79 / 0.41
19.5 / 0.67
SportsTraj †
3.32 / 0.30
17.2 / 0.55
2.61 / 0.32
12.1 / 0.64
1.94 / 0.17
6.14 / 0.30
88.9 /
11.7 /
2.59 / 0.42
12.9 / 0.71
TABLE VIII: Quantitative comparison under variable-length, fixed-length, and noisy forecasting settings. † denotes re-implemented methods, and ⋆ denotes forecasting with an imputed look-back window.
Baselines
Temperature
Dewpoint
Wind Rate
Wind Direc.
Sea-Level Pressure
MAE ↓ /99.5th ↑
MSE ↓ /90.0th ↑
MAE ↓ /99.5th ↑
MSE ↓ /90.0th ↑
MAE ↓ /99.5th ↑
MSE ↓ /90.0th ↑
MAE ↓ /99.5th ↑
MSE ↓ ( ×103 )/90.0th ↑
MAE ↓ /99.5th ↑
MSE ↓ /90.0th ↑
HRES
1.76 / -
7.39 / -
1.85 / -
7.94 / -
1.48 / -
4.53 / -
63.8 /
7.15 /
0.86 / -
2.68 / -
ESFM
1.76 / -
- / -
1.86 / -
- / -
1.40 / -
- / -
46.3 /
- /
2.55 / -
- / -
Chronos2
2.05 / 0.30
9.5 / 0.58
2.06 / 0.31
12.3 / 0.65
1.47 / 0.08
4.51 / 0.24
64.4 /
8.65 /
2.13 / 0.52
11.3 / 0.72
UniGIO fixed
1.28 / 0.63
3.68 / 0.83
1.32 / 0.52
4.29 / 0.78
1.15 / 0.20
2.88 / 0.45
58.6 /
7.63 /
1.05 / 0.76
2.82 / 0.87
TABLE IX: Quantitative Comparison with Finetuned Observation and Time Series Foundation models on 24h Forecast Task
Baselines
Temperature
Dewpoint
Wind Rate
Wind Direc.
Sea-Level Pressure
MAE ↓ /99.5th ↑
MSE ↓ /90.0th ↑
MAE ↓ /99.5th ↑
MSE ↓ /90.0th ↑
MAE ↓ /99.5th ↑
MSE ↓ /90.0th ↑
MAE ↓ /99.5th ↑
MSE ↓ ( ×103 )/90.0th ↑
MAE ↓ /99.5th ↑
MSE ↓ /90.0th ↑
TimeGAN
8.84 / 0.14
64.84 / 0.42
6.10 / 0.23
36.4 / 0.57
3.74 / 0.03
12.48 / 0.20
152 /
18.5 /
8.94 / 0.20
80.6 / 0.49
TimeVAE
6.77 / 0.16
37.7 / 0.47
5.14 / 0.22
25.3 / 0.60
3.10 / 0.02
8.87 / 0.14
145 /
15.9 /
7.71 / 0.14
56.3 / 0.52
UniMTD †
1.78 / 0.51
6.69 / 0.77
1.61 / 0.49
6.20 / 0.75
1.21 / 0.19
3.13 / 0.42
59.5 /
7.01 /
1.89 / 0.62
9.23 / 0.78
SportsTraj †
1.74 / 0.60
3.80 / 0.84
1.65 / 0.58
3.88 / 0.82
1.52 / 0.30
3.17 / 0.49
73.9 /
7.87 /
1.25 / 0.82
1.93 / 0.91
SSSD
5.49 / 0.22
35.21 / 0.51
4.51 / 0.26
28.23 / 0.59
2.52 / 0.17
8.85 / 0.27
116.82 /
16.46 /
5.67 / 0.31
47.54 / 0.57
TABLE X: Quantitative Comparison on Imputation Task † means re-implemented
Baselines
Temperature
Dewpoint
Wind Rate
Wind Direc.
Sea-Level Pressure
MAE ↓ /99.5th ↑
MSE ↓ /90.0th ↑
MAE ↓ /99.5th ↑
MSE ↓ /90.0th ↑
MAE ↓ /99.5th ↑
MSE ↓ /90.0th ↑
MAE ↓ /99.5th ↑
MSE ↓ ( ×103 )/90.0th ↑
MAE ↓ /99.5th ↑
MSE ↓ /90.0th ↑
TimeGAN
3.81 / 0.12
23.9 / 0.47
2.80 / 0.20
15.2 / 0.59
1.87 / 0.03
6.15 / 0.20
77.7 /
9.46 /
4.19 / 0.19
34.5 / 0.51
TimeVAE
3.46 / 0.11
19.3 / 0.47
2.57 / 0.18
12.5 / 0.60
1.59 / 0.02
4.63 / 0.15
72.7 /
7.96 /
3.89 / 0.13
28.2 / 0.52
UniMTD †
2.60 / 0.33
14.15 / 0.67
2.83 / 0.23
17.2 / 0.57
1.57 / 0.10
5.31 / 0.27
75.2 /
9.58 /
4.39 / 0.24
43.2 / 0.50
SportsTraj †
2.10 / 0.41
9.06 / 0.73
2.04 / 0.34
9.35 / 0.69
1.63 / 0.20
5.55 / 0.35
80.8 /
11.6 /
1.46 / 0.71
5.19 / 0.84
Diffusion-TS
4.23 / 0.13
33.06 / 0.42
3.06 / 0.19
20.44 / 0.54
1.94 / 0.15
7.80 / 0.25
88.58 /
13.59 /
4.22 / 0.21
38.68 / 0.49
TABLE XI: Quantitative Comparison on Generation Task † means re-implemented
Settings
Temperature
Wind Rate
Wind Direc.
Temperature
Wind Rate
MAE ↓
MSE ↓
MAE ↓
MSE ↓
MAE ↓
MSE ↓ ( ×103 )
99.5th ↑
90.0th ↑
99.5th ↑
90.0th ↑
World wide
1.88
8.03
1.52
5.13
75.3
10.4
0.44
0.75
0.16
0.34
All stations
3.14 / 2.22
20.5 / 11.3
1.81 / 1.62
6.91 / 5.77
80.9 / 84.9
11.7 / 12.2
0.13 / 0.29
0.46 / 0.64
0.08 / 0.12
0.20 / 0.23
90% stations
2.28 / 2.07
15.9 / 9.67
1.83 / 1.52
7.48 / 4.77
74.0 / 82.1
10.2 / 11.4
0.22 / 0.27
0.60 / 0.68
0.08 / 0.08
0.25 / 0.24
60% stations
2.06 / 1.84
8.76 / 7.99
1.68 / 1.36
6.11 / 3.78
73.4 / 80.9
10.1 / 11.1
0.32 / 0.30
0.64 / 0.71
0.14 / 0.10
0.27 / 0.25
30% stations
2.04 / 1.70
8.20 / 7.17
1.65 / 1.35
5.76 / 3.05
72.7 / 79.8
10.4 / 10.7
0.36 / 0.33
0.70 / 0.72
0.13 / 0.16
0.28 / 0.27
TABLE XII: Quantitative Evaluation on cross-region (South America / Africa) Generation
Fig. 9: Distribution coverage of results against GT across baselines and different mask settings. Less red area is better. TSNE plots look unclustered because GIO is largely continuous with no ‘category’ between randomly selected samples for visualization.
Fig. 10: Wind rate with multiple extreme events and stable sea-level pressure under different sampling noise intensities
Fig. 11: Ablation study results (right) and the representative expert specializations across variables, locations, uncertainties, and temporal patterns (left), different experts are denoted by colors
Baselines
Temperature
Dewpoint
Wind Rate
Wind Direc.
Sea-Level Pressure
MAE ↓ /99.5th ↑
MSE ↓ /90.0th ↑
MAE ↓ /99.5th ↑
MSE ↓ /90.0th ↑
MAE ↓ /99.5th ↑
MSE ↓ /90.0th ↑
MAE ↓ /99.5th ↑
MSE ↓ ( ×103 )/90.0th ↑
MAE ↓ /99.5th ↑
MSE ↓ /90.0th ↑
UniGIO 3.4M
1.45 / 0.55
5.35 / 0.81
1.50 / 0.46
5.99 / 0.75
1.27 / 0.22
3.63 / 0.39
64.6 /
8.45 /
1.02 / 0.79
3.67 / 0.88
UniGIO-M 0.9M
1.47 / 0.52
5.89 / 0.76
1.55 / 0.45
6.16 / 0.75
1.33 / 0.19
3.74 / 0.37
66.0 /
8.59 /
1.09 / 0.77
3.82 / 0.86
expert 32 4.5M
1.41 / 0.59
4.71 / 0.81
1.45 / 0.49
5.46 / 0.76
1.27 / 0.20
3.49 / 0.41
65.1 /
8.32 /
0.84 / 0.83
2.94 / 0.91
sample 0
1.40 / 0.45
4.14 / 0.66
1.41 / 0.37
5.24 / 0.58
1.15 / 0.10
3.02 / 0.27
56.4 /
6.05 /
0.73 / 0.76
1.97 / 0.77
sample 1.5
1.84 / 0.55
7.54 / 0.81
1.83 / 0.49
8.20 / 0.76
1.77 / 0.27
4.91 / 0.49
86.4 /
13.40 /
1.29 / 0.81
4.59 / 0.89
TABLE XIII: Ablation Study on Accuracy and F1-SEDI
Baselines
Temperature
Dewpoint
Wind Rate
Wind Direc.
Sea-Level Pressure
CroS ↓
FID ↓
STE ↓
FID ↓
STE ↓
FID ↓
STE ↓
FID ↓
STE ↓ ( ×103 )
FID ↓
STE ↓
UniGIO 3.4M
0.17
2.48
0.25
1.45
0.28
1.07
0.60
2.53
0.11
0.79
1.46
UniGIO-M 0.9M
0.19
2.47
0.29
1.46
0.30
1.09
0.64
2.63
0.05
0.71
1.49
expert 32 4.5M
0.14
2.45
0.21
1.43
0.23
0.97
0.55
2.46
0.02
0.68
1.43
sample 0
0.29
2.77
0.41
1.48
0.54
1.10
0.94
2.83
0.19
0.72
1.54
sample 1.5
0.27
3.09
0.45
1.87
0.66
1.57
1.25
4.11
0.26
1.15
1.56
TABLE XIV: Ablation Study on Fidelity
Songru Yang received the B.S. degree from Beihang University, Beijing, China in 2023. He is pursuing the Ph.D. degree in the Department of Aerospace Intelligent Science and Technology, School of Astronautics, Beihang University. His research interests include machine learning, parttern recognition and AI4S.
Weather forecasting predicts future atmospheric conditions, from local storms to global patterns, using physical models, observations, and machine learning.
State-of-the-art AI weather models have shown impressive medium-range forecast skill and computational efficiency, but suffer two key shortcomings: their forecasts have lower spatial and temporal resolution than the best physics-based models and they are exclusively initialized with and trained on analysis data. As a result, they cannot directly make use of observations, and any biases in the analysis are inherited by the forecast. WeatherNext 3 addresses these shortcomings and establishes a new state-of-the-art for probabilistic medium-range forecasting skill. First, WeatherNext 3 generates new forecasts every hour (rather than every 6 hours like traditional global models) by ingesting low-latency geostationary satellite data. Second, WeatherNext 3's temporal and spatial resolution are on par with physics-based global models, with hourly time steps and 0.1 degree resolution for single-level variables, including solar radiation and cloud cover. Third, WeatherNext 3 moves beyond traditional analysis variables by learning to predict satellite-derived precipitation estimates, as well as tropical cyclone and station observations. Modelling sparse station data allows WeatherNext 3 to make 2m temperature and dewpoint predictions at any location and time, conditioned on local geographical features, with substantially lower error than competing global models, even when evaluated against unseen stations. Together, WeatherNext 3's capabilities move operational AI-based weather forecasting beyond emulating the traditionally distinct stages of data assimilation, forecasting and post-processing, which helps to further push the frontier of performance and granularity for global weather prediction.
Weather reanalysis products rely on computationally intensive numerical weather predictions followed by data assimilation that corrects the forecast toward observations. Recent advances in deep generative models offer a cheaper alternative that shifts much of this cost from inference to offline training. However, existing generative approaches have been evaluated on synthetic observations or under different datasets and evaluation schemes, making it unclear which design choices improve real-world data assimilation. We present the first controlled benchmark of generative data assimilation for single-time near-surface analysis from real weather station observations. Using 11,849 NOAA MADIS stations across the contiguous United States and four near-surface variables, we hold the dataset, observation operator, and deep learning architecture fixed, and measure spatial generalization at held-out stations. The benchmark compares the major design choices proposed for generative data assimilation, including diffusion versus flow matching, pixel versus latent-space formulations, and multiple inference-time conditioning strategies, against a classical 3D-Var baseline. The benchmark reveals three conclusions. First, the best generative methods outperform 3D-Var (35.7% vs. 33.3% RMSE improvement over ERA5), although 3D-Var receives the ERA5 field at the analysis time as its background and the generative methods receive none. Second, full-gradient guidance consistently outperforms stop-gradient and initial-noise optimization. Third, other choices provide little measurable benefit: diffusion and flow matching perform nearly identically under matched conditions, and latent-space variable mixing does not help. Both advantages widen when stations are sparse. Together, these results identify which components of generative data assimilation improve spatial generalization in near-surface analysis.
Ruizhe Huang, Qidong Yang, Jonathan Giezendanner +1
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA
Accurate daily precipitation forecasts are important for weather-sensitive decisions. Although recent Weather Foundation Models (WFMs) have achieved significant progress, they are trained on reanalysis data, which exhibit regional and intensity-dependent biases. Since retraining WFMs on observation-based targets is costly, we study Dynamics-Precipitation Decoupling, a plug-and-play framework that uses a separately trained generator to map non-precipitation forecasts from a frozen weather model to observation-aligned daily precipitation. Its key challenges are to capture heterogeneous rainfall distributions and align daily accumulations with atmospheric signals that evolve across space and time. To address them, we train a diffusion generator conditional on atmospheric states and satellite-gauge estimates of precipitation. A multi-scale recurrent encoder summarizes atmospheric evolution, while cross-attention aligns atmospheric and precipitation features during denoising. Extensive evaluation of various backbones, including Pangu-Weather, GraphCast, and HRES, on global and regional forecasting shows improved daily precipitation accuracy and event detection, with better representation of localized accumulation patterns. Global ensemble evaluation shows lower Brier scores than ENS and training-from-scratch GenCast at all reported lead times, with lower CRPS in most comparisons. Remarkably, a heavy-rainfall case study using 2,288 stations in China further supports improved daily accumulation patterns and event detection against ground observations.
Guowen Li, Yang Liu, Mengxuan Chen +11
Tsinghua University · The Chinese University of Hong Kong · The Hong Kong University of S & T +5